[RTTY] How did the RM-11708 pins come across?

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 2014-05-20 5:07 PM, Mark wrote:
> I agree based on the short chat I had with k1zz (wearing my no
> rm-11708 button of course). His position seems to be some un named
> others, with a theoretical modulation scheme using multiple carriers
> each at 300 baud, were positioned to descend on the ham bands and
> that rm-11708 is needed to head that off.

That is K1ZZ doing his job as shill for Directors Woolweaver and Brodson
(the two who stampeded the ARRL Board of Directors into proposing
RM-11708).  K1ZZ needs a reason to justify RM-11708 and avoid admitting
it is simply a way to eliminate the 300 symbol per second limit to
allow PACTOR 4 (at 1800 bud) and other SSB bandwidth serial tone modes
to run roughshod over more than a dozen RTTY, PSK31, and JT- signals at
a time.  Note: PACTOR 4 will have almost twice as much average power as
PACTOR 3 in the same bandwidth and will result in significantly more QRM.

If there was any truth to K1ZZ's argument and there was a real threat
from this theoretical 300 baud multiple carrier mode, RM-11708 would
have simply sought to imposed a 2.4 KHz limit (to accommodate current
PACTOR 3 activity) on data emissions and *NOT* sought to remove the 300
symbol per second (baud) data rate limit.  One need only study what was
requested to see through the fiction.

Please see www.savertty.com, file comments with the FCC in opposition
to RM-11708 and urge your friends to do the same.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2014-05-20 5:07 PM, Mark wrote:
> I agree based on the short chat I had with k1zz (wearing my no rm-11708 button of course).
> His position seems to be some un named others, with a theoretical modulation scheme
> using multiple carriers each at 300 baud, were positioned to descend on the ham bands
> and that rm-11708 is needed to head that off.  Now, If the the very real, and existing
> pactor IV was to come through the door opened by Rm-11708, well that could be handled
> by band plans after the fact.
>
> Please continue to file comments on the FCC site and continue to pressure the arrl.
> Those of us being requested to donate to the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund have
> another opportunity to comment against this 'self inflicted' source of interference.
>
> Mark. N2QT
>